We are still waiting for OP to provide one. He very definitely doesn't want to, which makes me believe there wasn't any.

So you cant be bothered to find the official developer blog where they announced the change? No, I am not linking it to you. You can find it yourself.

Seriously, I am trying to find the blog you are talking about, but I can't fimd it.I only saw some updates from the official site which tell you can put your face in the game.Also a cartoon bunny with tits updateBest game ever.

We are still waiting for OP to provide one. He very definitely doesn't want to, which makes me believe there wasn't any.

So you cant be bothered to find the official developer blog where they announced the change? No, I am not linking it to you. You can find it yourself.

Out of having some time to kill, I googled 'drawn to death developer blog'. first page results included the primary website and Jaffe's twitter. Neither of these mention the change. The rest are other blogs, reporting that the game is out and/or free on PSN.

So yeah, this developer blog where he makes official announcements isn't even first page material when searching for it (or second page, where I gave up).

We are still waiting for OP to provide one. He very definitely doesn't want to, which makes me believe there wasn't any.

So you cant be bothered to find the official developer blog where they announced the change? No, I am not linking it to you. You can find it yourself.

So, you can't be bothered to do literally the single thing I've asked of you? Methinks you're getting way too defensive over this.

Ooh, by the way, I forgot - I did ask you for something else, too: you were supposed to show me when did I want the game censored. No worries, I'll be here when you decide to stop squirming around and shifting the goal posts.

I googled "drawn to death dev blog" and it's not there. Checked the official website and there is listed there. Checked the developer website and there was even less info.

I finally managed to track it down as a video on YouTube. From the video description (only source of changelog, as far as I can find):

- You guys that have already played won't notice this but we softened up the harshness of the frog in the training and defaulted the announcer to informative only. It's an experiment of sorts... Again, you guys won't notice it.

Not a mention of censorship. I even watched the video to see what they say about that change. And here we go (cut to only the relevant part):

So, there we go - I did your job for you. They say they are going to change it for about a week. Then they literally tell you that you shouldn't care - you, who have already played through the training. And frankly, it sounds like a change not unlike all the balance changes that were mentioned before - it's in order to get more people to play the game and stick with it. I don't see you complaining about the "Russian jackhammer" (whatever that is) being changed, nor do I see you decrying the matchmaking changes as censorship. It's this one thing that you should have already went past and not bother with that gets your ire. It's literally a change that the devs said they might roll back, if they feel like it. Moreover, it doesn't even sound like it's an IGN review that caused it, it seems like they actually have some idea that it could be a problematic area. Now pay attention here before you jump to more conclusions - this is literally why they would do this.

Elijin:Out of having some time to kill, I googled 'drawn to death developer blog'. first page results included the primary website and Jaffe's twitter. Neither of these mention the change. The rest are other blogs, reporting that the game is out and/or free on PSN.

So yeah, this developer blog where he makes official announcements isn't even first page material when searching for it (or second page, where I gave up).

Oh, yeah - there isn't an official blog. That was lie. Check my post above for the actual info, though. The way I found it is through a news article on PlayStationLifeStyle.net which, since you also did the googling, will recognise is not in any way the "official dev blog" at all. In fact, it's not in any way affiliated with the devs. The website just took the video description from a YouTube clip and basically re-posted it as a news article. I followed the source to the YouTube channel and found the video that did have the change in it.

Specifically: "You guys that have already played won't notice this but we softened up the harshness of the frog in the training and defaulted the announcer to informative only. It's an experiment of sorts... Again, you guys won't notice it."

Except this is nowhere close to what happened. They changed all of the controversial dialogue and did not give you the option to change it back.

Go read the threads in the Reddit forum and the official forum for further proof, since apparently my firshand experience with the change was not enough proof.

Specifically: "You guys that have already played won't notice this but we softened up the harshness of the frog in the training and defaulted the announcer to informative only. It's an experiment of sorts... Again, you guys won't notice it."

Except this is nowhere close to what happened. They changed all of the controversial dialogue and did not give you the option to change it back.

Go read the threads in the Reddit forum and the official forum for further proof, since apparently my firshand experience with the change was not enough proof.

And if you think the change was good, you like censorship.

So what you're saying is, the thing people were questioning you about, that you then told everyone to go 'find themselves' does not exist?

A youtube video is not an official developer blog.

Anyway, I'm all for this change. For two reasons:1: You made ridiculous comments about how if you think the change is good you like censorship. I now like it just because you're amusing.2: If they're prepared to tinker with the writing rather than see it as the unopposed pinnacle of greatness you do, it means one day the game might actually have some clever writing with enough tinkering.

Ultimately this topic remains hilarious as you ignore anyone who says anything you cant twist your way, while being the most defensive fan ever.

Okay, I know the internet has absolutely no clue what this term means anymore because they've run it into the ground, but in the interest of academia and futilely attempting to combat spreading misinformation, an artist making a change to their art of their own volition is not "censorship". At least not in the way that most people who toss the word around like popcorn mean it. Strictly speaking, it can be argued to be a form of "self-censorship", whatever the blazes that is and I only mention because it's the latest buzzword that internet censorship bois love, but in that context censorship is not the bad thing that said internet talking heads mean it to be, because it's still not "actual" censorship; i.e. the artist still has the option to not make whatever change they're making.

Moreover, when the change is explicitly described as being potentially temporary and designed to keep the interest of more people, arguing against it is actively stifling the artist's own intentions because you're too hung up on your own personal ideals. They are noticing something is causing people to lose interest in their product and are actively attempting to fix that, and you are arguing that they shouldn't because it personally offends you. Which, in the context of the art in question being a multi-player game, is pretty counterintuitive, really. Surely you should want more people to play the game if you really like it so much.

And just to prove the point, you link to the video that I already linked to and cut to the exact part

Nature Guardian:(because me playing the darn thing and witnessing the change is not proof enough?)

[...]

Go read the threads in the Reddit forum and the official forum for further proof, since apparently my firshand experience with the change was not enough proof.

I'm not asking for proof that the change was made - I trust you that much, I am asking for proof that it was a forced change. More specifically, that it was due to IGN. You have completely failed to show that.

shrekfan246:an artist making a change to their art of their own volition is not "censorship".

But of course it is! Director's cut in movies: censorship. Balance changes in a game: censorship. A redactor fixing a typo in a written work: censorship. Musicians making a remix of their song: censorship. Me quoting only part of your message, instead of all of it: censorship.

Even the spellchekcar is tryign to cesnor me.

The really funny part is that if Nature Guardian was actually opposed to censorship, he wouldn't be trying to make people shut up. Because, that would also be censorship.

Did the reviewer at IGN actually say they were offended by the humor itself or more that they were offended that the developers thought so little of their customers' sense of humor that they would basically make MEMES the Game? Genuinely asking since the latter is what I would assume after looking at some gameplay footage (no I don't really want to go read an IGN review, I dislike their content in general).

The game just seems painfully unfunny. This isn't 90's humor, this is modern teenage memes humor taken to an extreme. Seems to me that the developers are softening the entrance to the game so that people are eased into it without immediately thinking "this is the shit I'm going to be listening to? Fuck that, refund time."

Also, based on what the OP linked as evidence, there's nothing to suggest that the Devs changed the game because of IGN's review. Could it be that they changed the game because they thought it might make them more money? As someone else mentioned in this thread, it's capitalism, not fascism.

But sure, leap for the top shelf on conspiracies right away just because the devs change some lines in the TUTORIAL.

A lot of people complained about the oversexualized design of Dragon's Crown. Would you have been fine with the developers desexualizing their work to appeal to all those people?

And so many people complained about Mortal Kombat's violence that a rating system was born out of it. Do you really think Mortal Kombat would still be Mortal Kombat if they removed all the violence from all versions?

RedDeadFred:Did the reviewer at IGN actually say they were offended by the humor itself or more that they were offended that the developers thought so little of their customers' sense of humor that they would basically make MEMES the Game? Genuinely asking since the latter is what I would assume after looking at some gameplay footage (no I don't really want to go read an IGN review, I dislike their content in general).

The game just seems painfully unfunny. This isn't 90's humor, this is modern teenage memes humor taken to an extreme. Seems to me that the developers are softening the entrance to the game so that people are eased into it without immediately thinking "this is the shit I'm going to be listening to? Fuck that, refund time."

Also, based on what the OP linked as evidence, there's nothing to suggest that the Devs changed the game because of IGN's review. Could it be that they changed the game because they thought it might make them more money? As someone else mentioned in this thread, it's capitalism, not fascism.

But sure, leap for the top shelf on conspiracies right away just because the devs change some lines in the TUTORIAL.

Nature Guardian:A lot of people complained about the oversexualized design of Dragon's Crown. Would you have been fine with the developers desexualizing their work to appeal to all those people?

If they wanted to.

Nature Guardian:AAnd so many people complained about Mortal Kombat's violence that a rating system was born out of it. Do you really think Mortal Kombat would still be Mortal Kombat if they removed all the violence from all versions?

Yes? Gratuitous animations and fight engines are different things. The SNES Mortal Kombat is still Mortal Kombat, despite Nintendo's censorship.

Of course, modern animations, specials, and x-ray moves graphically inflicting crippling, debilitating, or lethal damage to their opponents but then having said opponents get back up missing a quarter of their health bar and no loss of ability is stupid.

Nature Guardian:A lot of people complained about the oversexualized design of Dragon's Crown. Would you have been fine with the developers desexualizing their work to appeal to all those people?

If they wanted to.

Did they want to, or were they forced to?

Harass someone long enough and you have a chance to force them to do what you want - even just to shut the haters up.

Yes? Gratuitous animations and fight engines are different things. The SNES Mortal Kombat is still Mortal Kombat, despite Nintendo's censorship.

Of course, modern animations, specials, and x-ray moves graphically inflicting crippling, debilitating, or lethal damage to their opponents but then having said opponents get back up missing a quarter of their health bar and no loss of ability is stupid.

SNES MK was a failure because it lacked the violence, which was a huge part of the game.

The hyperviolence wasn't just extra fluff but an integral part of the game.

Just like Drawn To Death's humor isn't extra fluff but an integral part of the game.

If you think it's not an integral part, you don't understand the concept of art style. Videogames are made with it. It's a huge part of their identity.

Now, I'm sure you're never going to see reason on this, and I should give up answering you, but I'm doing a last attempt here.

Now, I'm sure you're never going to see reason on this, and I should give up answering you, but I'm doing a last attempt here.

...Just an aside here, but this is my favourite sentence in this entire thread. It's just... golden.

Mmh. Just to make sure I'm interpreting correctly, are you mocking me?

Considering you started the thread blaming IGN, failed to provide any proof and only after 3 pages linked to a video that actually does nothing to prove your point and actually has the devs asserting that the change is to try and attract players rather than responding to any particular review, so the title of your own thread is basically a lie. Yeah, I am pretty sure Wrex is mocking you.

Look I get that you like the game, but you are coming off as completely unreasonable, accusing anyone that enjoys the change of supporting censorship is not a reasonable position, you can't get people to see reason when your own position is uncompromising and unreasonable itself. Dial it back or take a break, you are coming off as slightly unhinged, and I imagine half the reason so many people are dogpiling you is because you keep escalating, other people may be unreasonably hounding you, but you are not being the bastion of reason yourself.

You can't talk a person into calming down and being reasonable when you are not being reasonable yourself.

Nature Guardian:A lot of people complained about the oversexualized design of Dragon's Crown. Would you have been fine with the developers desexualizing their work to appeal to all those people?

If they wanted to.

Did they want to, or were they forced to?

Harass someone long enough and you have a chance to force them to do what you want - even just to shut the haters up.

Sure, maybe, eventually. But if all it takes is a handful of critical game reviews, well... I mean, this entire argument is "dev makes thing, some people don't like parts of thing, dev (maybe temporarily) changes thing." I'm not seeing the outrage.

Yes? Gratuitous animations and fight engines are different things. The SNES Mortal Kombat is still Mortal Kombat, despite Nintendo's censorship.

Of course, modern animations, specials, and x-ray moves graphically inflicting crippling, debilitating, or lethal damage to their opponents but then having said opponents get back up missing a quarter of their health bar and no loss of ability is stupid.

SNES MK was a failure because it lacked the violence, which was a huge part of the game.

It might not have been the popular version of Mortal Kombat, but it was still Mortal Kombat.

Now, I'm sure you're never going to see reason on this, and I should give up answering you, but I'm doing a last attempt here.

Somehow, I don't think "seeing reason" = "I'm outraged that devs made a change I don't agree with and I'm blaming everybody but the devs." I mean, I could see it if you were mad at the publisher, because they have some actual top-level influence over the game, but I'll never understand getting mad at people with no authority over developers or publishers voicing a negative opinion. (Well, unless it' s a group of idiots review bombing people or DDOSing sites or servers, but that's not what's happening, is it?)

...Just an aside here, but this is my favourite sentence in this entire thread. It's just... golden.

Mmh. Just to make sure I'm interpreting correctly, are you mocking me?

Considering you started the thread blaming IGN, failed to provide any proof and only after 3 pages linked to a video that actually does nothing to prove your point and actually has the devs asserting that the change is to try and attract players rather than responding to any particular review, so the title of your own thread is basically a lie. Yeah, I am pretty sure Wrex is mocking you.

Look I get that you like the game, but you are coming off as completely unreasonable, accusing anyone that enjoys the change of supporting censorship is not a reasonable position, you can't get people to see reason when your own position is uncompromising and unreasonable itself. Dial it back or take a break, you are coming off as slightly unhinged, and I imagine half the reason so many people are dogpiling you is because you keep escalating, other people may be unreasonably hounding you, but you are not being the bastion of reason yourself.

You can't talk a person into calming down and being reasonable when you are not being reasonable yourself.

I'm making a last attempt, and then I guess I have no other option but to back down and abandon my own thread, since, as it was mentioned, this thread is "everyone freely attacking Nature Guardian".

You know, come to think about it, this very thread is a good example: enough people dogpiling someone will eventually force that someone to abandon their purpose.That's what I feel happened in Drawn To Death.

People here called the game's humor stupid and unfunny. I find its humor charming and hilarious. Maybe many people here didn't grow up in the '90s reading Lobo and Dredd comics. This game seems to be made for that kind of people. People like me.

Just like the examples I brought (Mortal Kombat and Dragon's Crown), when you make something with a style that is considered provocative, you'll get a bunch of haters. Provocation may be perceived on sexualization, violence, and all the hot topics that get people riled up.But sometimes, what makes the product provocative is also what makes the product's identity. Change it, and you change the entire artistic feel of the media, as well as stifle or shut down what was the original vision of the creators.

As someone who was drawn into the game precisely by that humor that certain people found offensive or stupid, removing it is a big change. The devs were sending an artistic message, and I approved of that message, and now they're changing it for the people who didn't like it.

But then again, when the game calls you a fat loser, it may have hit too close to home for some people.

Harass someone long enough and you have a chance to force them to do what you want - even just to shut the haters up.

Sure, maybe, eventually. But if all it takes is a handful of critical game reviews, well... I mean, this entire argument is "dev makes thing, some people don't like parts of thing, dev (maybe temporarily) changes thing." I'm not seeing the outrage.

The key word here is "SOME people". Why appeal to people who hate your product at the expense of people who liked it from the beginning? Chances are the people who hate it will still hate it, and people who liked it will feel disappointed and like it less.

Don't think I'm not blaming the devs themselves on this - they gave in too easily, changing the game less than two weeks after release.

EternallyBored:Look I get that you like the game, but you are coming off as completely unreasonable, accusing anyone that enjoys the change of supporting censorship is not a reasonable position

It's even funnier when he accused me of desiring this change. The change that I didn't even know existed before seeing this thread. In a game I never actually played nor even planned on playing. And most importantly, a game I had never said anything about at all. When I asked OP to back his words up, he immediately decided that I must be one of "them" and was in full support of "censorship".

EternallyBored:Look I get that you like the game, but you are coming off as completely unreasonable, accusing anyone that enjoys the change of supporting censorship is not a reasonable position

It's even funnier when he accused me of desiring this change. The change that I didn't even know existed before seeing this thread. In a game I never actually played nor even planned on playing. And most importantly, a game I had never said anything about at all. When I asked OP to back his words up, he immediately decided that I must be one of "them" and was in full support of "censorship".

Then he goes on to accuse people of being unreasonable.

Proof was already given. With links and all. But you're still ramming on about needing proof?

McMarbles:Sounds like a case of a creator deciding what's best for their own work...

oh, right, I keep forgetting that we only care about what the creator wants when it comes to underage anime tits or excluding non-white-male characters.

This is why the exploitation genre is well on its way to going the way of the dodo and replaced with the utterly unambitous AAA that investors are attracted. Every time a critic does shit like this that forces people to tone down their content to avoid being persona non grata shows how Japan is at least good at letting the audience dictate taste and not some focus group.

Oh, but they have a focus group: Japanese Otakus. If you aren't a Japanese Otaku, you won't even be able to have access to half of their game releases, because you aren't part of their audience.

Elijin:Oh man, you got this close to making a relatively composed exit, and then bam, petty spitefulness.

Maybe next time!

Hey, I can be very composed.

When people around me are composed.

I'm very often a mirror of what I see around me in a conversation.

I mean most of us are just reeling with disbelief at this hill you've chosen to die on. The hill where your own sources contradict you, and you cant provide a single piece of supporting evidence. Where are these legions of haters who wore the dev down? I thought it was the IGN article which prompted the change? I cannot keep up!

I don't think a single person opposite you in this thread could even sum up enough enthusiasm to hate the game. Lots of us have even said like what you're going to like, no problems. You're the one going all crazypants saying we don't get it because we're unimpressed.

altnameJag:Sure, maybe, eventually. But if all it takes is a handful of critical game reviews, well... I mean, this entire argument is "dev makes thing, some people don't like parts of thing, dev (maybe temporarily) changes thing." I'm not seeing the outrage.

That's also, hilariously, the very function of critique as its own thing. The nature of critique is such that it exists in order for people to take in feedback and either accept or refuse it depending on how they view their work and how they wish to present said work. Conflating critique with "censorship" is just... well, very often a way of attempting to engage in "censorship" oneself, because the only reason to cry "censorship" in such a situation is that you don't like what the critic has said and desire to have their words expunged from public memory.

EternallyBored:Look I get that you like the game, but you are coming off as completely unreasonable, accusing anyone that enjoys the change of supporting censorship is not a reasonable position

It's even funnier when he accused me of desiring this change. The change that I didn't even know existed before seeing this thread. In a game I never actually played nor even planned on playing. And most importantly, a game I had never said anything about at all. When I asked OP to back his words up, he immediately decided that I must be one of "them" and was in full support of "censorship".

Then he goes on to accuse people of being unreasonable.

Proof was already given. With links and all. But you're still ramming on about needing proof?

Did you even read what I said last time about the proof? The thing I EVEN LINKED TO? No? So, let me repeat - you have provided no actual proof in any capacity that the developers were forced to make the change. Come back when you can prove THAT to me. Do yourself a favour and read what I've already posted, too, since it seems you are trying to be willingly ignorant here.

Elijin:Oh man, you got this close to making a relatively composed exit, and then bam, petty spitefulness.

Maybe next time!

Hey, I can be very composed.

When people around me are composed.

I'm very often a mirror of what I see around me in a conversation.

That's not composure, if you can only be composed when other people around you are being composed, then you are not in control, you are letting other people control you.

The definition of composure is being calm and in control of yourself, if you can't maintain that calm and control in reaction to other people then you are not actually in control of yourself.

Having composure is maintaining calm and control in high stress situations, if you lose your composure by being a mirror of what you see around you in conversation, then you were never really in control to begin with.

Nature Guardian:I regret even bringing that up. I can see now I'm literally the only person who cared about that change in Drawn To Death, as you have fully shown me.

If the thread was ABOUT the change, maybe people would have cared more. As it stands it was an outright fabrication and a lie. People called you out on it and you literally levelled completely unreasonable criticism at them. When called on that, you claimed other people were unreasonable.

RedDeadFred:Did the reviewer at IGN actually say they were offended by the humor itself or more that they were offended that the developers thought so little of their customers' sense of humor that they would basically make MEMES the Game? Genuinely asking since the latter is what I would assume after looking at some gameplay footage (no I don't really want to go read an IGN review, I dislike their content in general).

The game just seems painfully unfunny. This isn't 90's humor, this is modern teenage memes humor taken to an extreme. Seems to me that the developers are softening the entrance to the game so that people are eased into it without immediately thinking "this is the shit I'm going to be listening to? Fuck that, refund time."

Also, based on what the OP linked as evidence, there's nothing to suggest that the Devs changed the game because of IGN's review. Could it be that they changed the game because they thought it might make them more money? As someone else mentioned in this thread, it's capitalism, not fascism.

But sure, leap for the top shelf on conspiracies right away just because the devs change some lines in the TUTORIAL.

As I said before, the writer didn't seem to be offended by it, they just thought it was overall too unrelentingly mean-spirited and obnoxious.

From the review itself:

Drawn to Death isn't just sophomoric or crass--there's nothing wrong with some South Park-style shock humor. The real problem is the constant and unending barrage of discouraging abuse it hurls your way at every possible opportunity. Within the space it takes to complete the tutorial you'll be fully aware of how ugly, stupid, unskilled, and utterly worthless it's characters think you are--not to mention what a good French kisser your mom is--and Drawn to Death will never, ever let you forget it. "You died," the cartoon frog mentor says if you die during the tutorial, "and I'm genuinely sad. I'm not surprised, mind you, because I think you're stupid. But I am sad." It's as if developer The Bartlet Jones Supernatural Detective Agency has taken the kind of in-game chat awfulness that makes so many of us take off our headsets and mute everybody when playing online, and made it part of the game itself.

It doesn't even mix things up, sending the same handful of taunts and insults your way multiple times every single match.